till the end of the year? Shouldn't Loretta be harranguing Codey instead of Sweeney to post the bill? The senate dems are a mess of confusion and infighting.

I guess poor Loretta Weinberg just got a taste of what life is going to be like under the totalitarian Norcross regime. Poor woman...one more misstatement like this and she might be banished to Siberia.

NJ residents? Not likely voters or even registered voters?

that those against changing our long established laws need to fight this issue? We are not proposing changes, yet it seems we are the ones that need to pursue Constitutional Amendments just to maintain what has always existed.

In America’s history, when an aggrieved group believes our laws are unjust, it is that group that convinces the rest of society of their plight and circumstance. Then they take the necessary steps to get the matter resolved by passing a Constitutional Amendment. This how women were given the right to vote (19th Amendment) and the voting age was reduced to eighteen years of age (26th Amendment).

Women were not given the right to vote because some judge or legislative body decided that the definition of man should be changed to include women. 18, 19, and 20 year olds were not permitted to vote because some judge decided they were as mature as a 21 year old and therefore should be able to vote. I also want to point out that not one woman voted to pass the 19th Amendment, not one person under the age of twenty-one voted to pass the 26th Amendment. These Amendments passed because society, as a whole, agreed that these changes were justified.

It should not be up to defenders of marriage to pass amendments to secure the long established concept of marriage. Homosexuals and their supporters should be the ones required to pass an amendment to effect the change they seek. They also have a significant advantage that neither blacks, nor women, nor those under twenty-one enjoyed when they sought to make changes to our laws. They will not be denied from voting for the amendment.